eurealist.co.uk

The EU’s External Action Services/Embassies/Consulates/High Commission/Missions.

In a declaration attached to the Treaty, the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) stated that “as soon as the Treaty ESTABLISHING a CONSTITUTION for Europe (meaning the Union) was signed, the Secretary General of the Council or High Representative for the CFSP, the Commission and the Member States should begin preparatory work on the European External Action Service (EEAS)

In the European Council of 29^th June 2004 they nominated José Barroso as the new Commission President. Also agreed was Javier Solano as the first Union Minister for Foreign Affairs. He will however, only be able to assume this office when the EU Constitution has been ratified by all 25 Member states and actually then comes into force.

All this was provided for in the Treaty ESTABLISHING a CONSTITUTION for Europe (meaning the Union), but the Constitution is not now applicable (it is dead) as it has been resoundly and democratically rejected by referendum by two major Countries. It can hardly be said that any annex or declaration to the Constitution can be ‘live’ to be acted upon when the major Constitutional Document it is attached to is no longer applicable having been rejected by the people of two Countries.. The EU prides itself on democracy (bringing democracy closer to you) yet now, because of the eagerness of those in high office to integrate completely into the Union, we now have an unelected and therefore undemocratic Commission quite deliberately ignoring the wishes of the people. There is absolutely no legal base for the External Action Services, which, I believe, is expected to eventually replace the national diplomatic services. I understand that to operate ‘lawfully’, the EU’s External Action Services require the ratification of the Constitutional Treaty or alteration to existing Treaties.

The Union wants one “voice” to represent all 25 nation states, but that is, at the moment exactly what they are, 25 separates Nation States and each has an embassy in which ever foreign Country allows them to have an Embassy. When holidaying abroad and a dreadful accident or natural disaster occurs, it is to ‘one of our own’ that people turn to for help. Someone that understands national needs and requirements, that speaks the same language and most importantly of all, understands the quaint national tendencies.

The Union wants one voice to speak for all foreign Countries, for it may help to create a stronger profile for the Union in the world. That though, is putting the Union before helping the people.

The EU puts an argument about the cost for all the different Embassies, the diplomats that are employed in them and the cost born by some of the smaller Countries in the EU, when we could be “sharing” and thus save money. Well we, as an independent Country have managed very well paying for our own Embassies over many years and as for the EU wanting to save money, or begin to be concerned about money when its own accounts have not been signed off by the auditors for a number of years, the money the EU wastes and costs to Member States in trying to implement many of its wasteful directives, is really a very silly ‘call’. If the matter was not so serious to all of us, it would be laughable. The EU wants power. It wants one voice in all matters. BUT it too must obey the law it makes and in this case before any External Diplomatic Service can be set up, it must have a Treaty or alteration to a previous Treaty.

It has been suggested that all staff should be trained and particularly joint training with perhaps the establishment of a ‘European diplomatic academy’ and these trainees should go on courses preferably in a country other than their own. I would suggest that the established Embassies already have perfectly good staff, that are indeed well trained, and if they are not, it is up to the Nation States to train them, not the European Union. They are answerable to their own Country and not as is suggested, to a would be EU Foreign Minister.

It matters not whether separate buildings are being built, or existing buildings are shared, an EU external Action Service cannot lawfully operate without ratification of a Treaty.

It was with great sadness that I now understand this ‘service’ is apparently going ahead already and being implemented under Article III-296 (3) of the non-applicable EU Constitution. If the people are ignored in this fashion, it should come as no surprise that the people will begin to ignore Commissioners and MEP’s. For legislation to work, it has to be accepted by all the people. Of course, if there was an independent Court, the people could place an objection, but there is no such Court.

People, the ordinary people, realise that Embassies, defence and foreign affairs matters should remain totally under the authority of their own national States, working with other nations when or if they feel it is right, and within international law to do so. Most definitely not under any European Foreign Minister.

If any Government acted unlawfully, especially deliberately so, as this matter appears to be, there would be tremendous consequences. The people do rather expect a better example from the Heads of such an organisation this Country contributes so heavily into financially and otherwise.

What can the people do if the EU and Heads of State carry on implementing these new Agencies or Articles etc from the EU Constitutional document and ignoring the wishes of the people? That is a question that should be given a great deal of thought.

Anne Palmer. May 2006.

After its period of deep reflection, the European Commission has come up with a “Citizen’s Agenda”:

Basically it seems to be more of the same, but with improved PR.

However there’s one strikingly bold initiative: “It will explore the possibility of developing an “entitlement” card which would enable every European citizen to be aware of and enjoy full access to their existing rights.”Perhaps the reverse of the card could also explain the corresponding duties of every European citizen. What are those duties, now, and what would they be under the Constitution? I’ve repeatedly asked this question on Margot Wallstrom’s blog: but the Commissioner for Communication seems unable to communicate any kind of answer.

If the Union was giving me something that I didn’t already have, obviously the Union would want something in return. In fact, even if the Union was giving me nothing that I didn’t already have, on past form the Union would still want something in return. Maybe they assume that as a grateful European citizen I will give them my loyalty, but that will never happen.From Dennis Cooper